Whether the people in Ferguson have legitimate reason to be angry or not, there is no reasonable excuse to do rioting, vandalism, looting and burning of businesses. I do not mind peaceful or even loud protests, but once the violence starts, especially when there is burning and looting and vandalism going on, what sympathy I have to the protestors starts to drop. Fast. The people of Ferguson can protest, but they shouldn't be burning, looting or vandalizing anything. It makes them look like morons, especially when its small businesses that are mostly hit.

I salute the brave National Guard troopers going in. Hopefully they maintain order and this can all be put to rest without any bloodshed.

Protesters will go home, the people causing violence and looting will move off from fear of the feds and order will be re established.

It saddens me to see that the way of non violent protests seems to be dying these days.

My prayers are with the people who have lost their livelyhoods and had their property damaged by all this. I hope that they have not lost too much and that they can rebuild. Though I know that in these harsh economic times, the loss of a business pretty much means they should start preparing for unemployment and food stamps.

Edit: My persona opinion on this matter is that there is no real right answer. There was going to be riots regardless of what was said and this tragic event has become politicized and polarized.

Whether the people in Ferguson have legitimate reason to be angry or not, there is no reasonable excuse to do rioting, vandalism, looting and burning of businesses. I do not mind peaceful or even loud protests, but once the violence starts, especially when there is burning and looting and vandalism going on, what sympathy I have to the protestors starts to drop. Fast. The people of Ferguson can protest, but they shouldn't be burning, looting or vandalizing anything. It makes them look like morons, especially when its small businesses that are mostly hit.

I think there is a distinction between rioters and protestors. Some of the Ferguson protestors rioted. But not all of the Ferguson protestors rioted.

Moreover, I suspect some of the rioters were not protestors at all--some were probably just opportunists.

It seems that the majority of the protestors called for non-violent action immediately in response to the announcement, did not riot, and are condemning the rioter for their actions. It is too bad that the rioters are diluting the protestors' message.

Perfect distinction, Cycle. Opportunists are being blamed for the looting. Some protestors are looting. Regardless, if you are looting, burning, pillaging, causing bodily harm, you are a criminal and should be dealt with accordingly.

On a delicate matter, if the population is 2/3 black yet the police and government demographic is heavily white, why don't some of the residents run for office or join the police force? Is there evidence of systemic discrimination in hiring? Certainly the political process at the local level may be accessible--and winnable--for the constituency. Again, I only ask out of ignorance. I am not familiar with the region's politics or public sector hiring practices.

It's sad that not only are there people committing arson, burglary and theft with threats of bodily harm and assault added to it but there are others influencing and encouraging them to do so. For many it really has nothing to do with a young black man being killed. As someone above said they are opportunists out for what they can get for themselves.

Worth noting: I'm not sure about the current round, but in round 1, the overwhelming majority of the protesters were not just against the looters,but actively protected and in at least one case saved businesses under attack while the police were doing nothing. The rioting will not diminish my respect for the protesters, nor do I think non-violent protest is becoming a thing of the past, because the protesters and the rioters are distinct categories, and protesters will often not just condemn but actively work against rioting.

Can I just say that I'm very happy that other parts of the world actually care about what happens to the common folk and even my people. For the longest time I thought the world hated black people...this is beautiful to me.

i'm heartened that a positive message came out of all this tragedy. for the record, there are many who don't care what color your are - actions and deeds create beauty, not skin color. you are beautiful and you matter. *hugs*

Personally, I don't have much empathy for Michael Brown. When I seen the video if the deceased being a thug & robbing that store, I lost empathy. I hate that his life was taken, I hate that the police officer will probably have to go into witness protection, but the rioting gives him no honor. But no matter how much of a criminal he was, a mother lost her son. I have empathy for her. Many business owners and their employees lost their livelihoods in Ferguson during the looting and rioting. I have empathy for them. A lot of the people that live everyday in Ferguson have been vilified because of the ignorant and destructive actions of a few (that are usually agitators coming in from St. Louis and other places). I have empathy for them. But it's not fair to call for empathy for one side and not extend it to the other.

I'm almost positive that Darren Wilson did not wake up that morning intending to kill anyone. And no one can understand the fear he must have felt in those moments unless you've been there. He took a life. Whether he regrets his actions or not, that's a heavy thing to carry forever. He's lost his career. I have empathy for him. I have empathy for his family. I'm sure he has a mother that has had to watch her son go through this.

This is disgusting. Do you realize that this boy just graduated highschool and was on his way to college? He stole a pack of cigars...oh fucking well. I stole skittles when I was fucking 10 year old because I wanted skittles. Not only that, you guys label him as a thug...why? Because of the color of his skin? the fact that he was born in a poorer neighborhood or because of how he dresses?

And all that bullshit of him with money and "thuggish" poses...guess what fools...thats not him and it was proven that it was someone else. Its called fucking racist propaganda. I'm so over this.

I'm almost positive that Darren Wilson did not wake up that morning intending to kill anyone. And no one can understand the fear he must have felt in those moments unless you've been there. He took a life. Whether he regrets his actions or not, that's a heavy thing to carry forever. He's lost his career. I have empathy for him. I have empathy for his family. I'm sure he has a mother that has had to watch her son go through this.

Considering how his testimony blatantly and wildly contradicts the known evidence in at least one major regard immediately preceding the shooting... I have strong suspicions that he wasn't as scared as he claims. Even if we take his rather nonsensical and conflicting statement at face value... I can certainly understand where at leastsome of his decision-making came from.

I haven't read the entire transcript yet, just bits and pieces, but the tweets by Lisa Bloom are very on point. Why didn't the prosecutor question Wilson about the multitude of inconsistencies in his statement? Just to sum up a couple questions that SHOULD have been asked in cross examination, but were NOT:

"How did Mike Brown punch you on the right side of your face with his right hand if you were in the driver's seat of your car?""If you, as previously testified, did not believe the victim was armed, why were you so focused on the hand near his waist band?""How does Brown taking one step constitute charging?""If the victim punched you full force in the face twice as alleged, why does your hospital record show no bruises, cuts, or lacerations when you went in for your check?"

She also goes on in her tweets to compare the prosecutions botching of this with the prosecutions poor job in the Trayvon Martin case where again the victim was dehumanized and the prosecution failed to ask any tough questions. As a former lawyer myself I also find myself wondering if the prosecution was incompetent or just unwilling to pursue this faithfully.

And after reading sections of the transcript myself I feel sick to my stomach. I want to start burning things. Especially when I see sections where the officer refers to Brown as "It". As in "...it looked like a demon coming towards me." Then a few sentences later mentions that Brown's hands were in the air. Honesty, I am completely appalled at this. I don't know if these investigations need to be taken out of the jurisdictions of local prosecutors who are often dependent on the local police or what the solution is, but this, this has to stop.

And here's an interesting article about white riots. http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2014/11/white-people-rioting-for-no-reason.html Yet I don't recall the outrage about these, the calling them thugs, condemning 'white culture', that [censored] Ted Nugent pontificating publicly about white people and abortion. Where was the outrage from Sean Hannity, Ann COulter, Bill O'Reilly, and Guiliani at these events? Oh right... white people rioting so it's not that bad.

Whether the people in Ferguson have legitimate reason to be angry or not, there is no reasonable excuse to do rioting, vandalism, looting and burning of businesses. I do not mind peaceful or even loud protests, but once the violence starts, especially when there is burning and looting and vandalism going on, what sympathy I have to the protestors starts to drop. Fast. The people of Ferguson can protest, but they shouldn't be burning, looting or vandalizing anything. It makes them look like morons, especially when its small businesses that are mostly hit.

This might have been addressed already, but the majority of looters were from out of town taking advantage of the unrest. A lot of local protesters (both past and current) actively protected local shops from them.

I haven't read the entire transcript yet, just bits and pieces, but the tweets by Lisa Bloom are very on point. Why didn't the prosecutor question Wilson about the multitude of inconsistencies in his statement? Just to sum up a couple questions that SHOULD have been asked in cross examination, but were NOT:

"How did Mike Brown punch you on the right side of your face with his right hand if you were in the driver's seat of your car?""If you, as previously testified, did not believe the victim was armed, why were you so focused on the hand near his waist band?""How does Brown taking one step constitute charging?""If the victim punched you full force in the face twice as alleged, why does your hospital record show no bruises, cuts, or lacerations when you went in for your check?"

She also goes on in her tweets to compare the prosecutions botching of this with the prosecutions poor job in the Trayvon Martin case where again the victim was dehumanized and the prosecution failed to ask any tough questions. As a former lawyer myself I also find myself wondering if the prosecution was incompetent or just unwilling to pursue this faithfully.

And after reading sections of the transcript myself I feel sick to my stomach. I want to start burning things. Especially when I see sections where the officer refers to Brown as "It". As in "...it looked like a demon coming towards me." Then a few sentences later mentions that Brown's hands were in the air. Honesty, I am completely appalled at this. I don't know if these investigations need to be taken out of the jurisdictions of local prosecutors who are often dependent on the local police or what the solution is, but this, this has to stop.

And here's an interesting article about white riots. http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2014/11/white-people-rioting-for-no-reason.html Yet I don't recall the outrage about these, the calling them thugs, condemning 'white culture', that [censored] Ted Nugent pontificating publicly about white people and abortion. Where was the outrage from Sean Hannity, Ann COulter, Bill O'Reilly, and Guiliani at these events? Oh right... white people rioting so it's not that bad.

Anyway, I'm out of this convo before I really do break something.

IANAL, but is it possible that he got hit on the right side of his face if he was looking strait forward at Brown? ( Ie. left handed punch grazing right side of face? )

As for bruises, they do have photos of that:

Unfortunately, there are two narratives going around, and its kind of hard to tell which story is correct. If I am not mistaken, the main reason why he did not get indicted was that the allegations against him were inconsistent and there was really not enough credible evidence to work with. I am a bit curious about why the cop was not cross examined at the indictment, though.

If its true that this guy really did attack the cop in his car and then try to grab his gun, then he was tempting fate and got burned. I'm not really sure what else the cop was supposed to do in that case. Personally, I think it would have been better if he had just shot him in the legs or shoulder to debilitate him?

If its true that this guy really did attack the cop in his car and then try to grab his gun, then he was tempting fate and got burned. I'm not really sure what else the cop was supposed to do in that case. Personally, I think it would have been better if he had just shot him in the legs or shoulder to debilitate him?

I am neither a cop nor a weapons expert, but I see two problems with "shoot to wound".

The first ist that a leg or shoulder is a small target and not that easily hit, especially on a moving target. We are talking about situations here where the adrenaline is pumping, heart rates are up, breathing is fast, stress levels are high. That doesn't make for the most precise shots. So if a cop really believes his own life is in danger (rightly or wrongly, but really believes it), telling him to aim for a leg could well lead to several misses or just grazing hits and than an assailant could be upon him. Sadly the torso of a human being makes a much easier target.

The second problem I see is that cops should be taught to use a firearm only as a last resort. If you tell them it's okay to "shoot to wound" they might get their guns out even more than they already do, lowering the threshold for when it is okay to use a firearm. I am not so sure that would be a good idea.

I am neither a cop nor a weapons expert, but I see two problems with "shoot to wound"

The first ist that a leg or shoulder is a small target and not that easily hit, especially on a moving target. We are talking about situations here where the adrenaline is pumping, heart rates are up, breathing is fast, stress levels are high. That doesn't make for the most precise shots. So if a cop really believes his own life is in danger (rightly or wrongly, but really believes it), telling him to aim for a leg could well lead to several misses or just grazing hits and than an assailant could be upon him. Sadly the torso of a human being makes a much easier target..

The FBI agrees.

"Rather, shootings are characterized by their sudden, unexpected occurrence; by rapid and unpredictable movement of both officer and adversary; by limited and partial target opportunities; by poor light and unforeseen obstacles; and by the life or death stress of sudden, close, personal violence. Training is quite properly oriented towards "center of mass" shooting. That is to say, the officer is trained to shoot at the center of whatever is presented for a target. Proper shot placement is a hit in the center of that part of the adversary which is presented, regardless of anatomy or angle."

The second problem I see is that cops should be taught to use a firearm only as a last resort. If you tell them it's okay to "shoot to wound" they might get their guns out even more than they already do, lowering the threshold for when it is okay to use a firearm. I am not so sure that would be a good idea.

I agree. Less lethal armaments (tasers, capsicin spray, etc) are the appropriate choice for a situation not requiring lethal force. A firearm should only be used if the situation justifies the use of immediate lethal force, in which case fancy trick-shooting would not be a realistic or appropriate option.

If its true that this guy really did attack the cop in his car and then try to grab his gun, then he was tempting fate and got burned. I'm not really sure what else the cop was supposed to do in that case. Personally, I think it would have been better if he had just shot him in the legs or shoulder to debilitate him?

There is at least one serious problem with Wilson's narrative, which brings the rest of it into severe question: According to Wilson, Brown died 10-20 feet from the car. Why was he found 150 feet away?

And here's an interesting article about white riots. http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2014/11/white-people-rioting-for-no-reason.html Yet I don't recall the outrage about these, the calling them thugs, condemning 'white culture', that [censored] Ted Nugent pontificating publicly about white people and abortion. Where was the outrage from Sean Hannity, Ann COulter, Bill O'Reilly, and Guiliani at these events? Oh right... white people rioting so it's not that bad.

Anyway, I'm out of this convo before I really do break something.

Its just like how during disasters... ya know, you see a white person carrying stuff out of a flooded store, and they're 'finding supplies'; you see a black person carrying stuff out of a flooded store and they're 'looting'.

But as for this whole issue... I'm just going to echo what I've heard said before by other people, because at this point, I find it hard to argue against it; cops need body cameras. Yes, there's a matter of cost, but when you consider all the incidents where cops are accused of abusing their authority, of killing unarmed kids, of racial prejudice, etc. It would just be so much easier if we could just check video footage, see what happened, be done with it.

As it is, we'll NEVER know with 100% certainty if Darren Wilson acted responsibly, or if he really was out of line. If he was a good cop just doing his job, video evidence would exonerate him. If he was a racist who shot a black kid for being 'scary', video evidence would condemn him. Either way, the only people harmed would be corrupt cops and people trying to frame good cops. From what I've heard, not only would the benefit be proof of what DID happen, but it would also prevent things from happening in the first place. Its been shown that the simple presence of a camera improves the behavior of civilians and police alike.

I've heard people raise the issue of privacy concerns, but... as someone who is very heavily in favor of personal privacy... I feel like, if I'm talking to a police officer, I'm already in a situation where there's not really a huge expectation of privacy. I'm already speaking to a representative of a law enforcement agency, I don't really feel any loss of personal privacy at that point that would even come close to outweighing the positive effects.

Read this article on CNN. I think it does a very excellent job of summarizing the real problems in discussing race. Whites and minorities often see the discussion of race differently where generally speaking whites talk about overt racism, while minorities often discuss racial bias which oftentimes whites dismiss, despite numerous studies showing that racial bias is real and very damaging to minorities.

Read this article on CNN. I think it does a very excellent job of summarizing the real problems in discussing race. Whites and minorities often see the discussion of race differently where generally speaking whites talk about overt racism, while minorities often discuss racial bias which oftentimes whites dismiss, despite numerous studies showing that racial bias is real and very damaging to minorities.

I think the best thing this article points out is that minorities and majorities are racially biased. The unfortunate situation of this is that it leads to an eye-for-an-eye-makes-the-whole-world-blind kind of situation. :|

I agree. Less lethal armaments (tasers, capsicin spray, etc) are the appropriate choice for a situation not requiring lethal force. A firearm should only be used if the situation justifies the use of immediate lethal force, in which case fancy trick-shooting would not be a realistic or appropriate option.

The problem with 'less than lethal' armaments is that they are also 'less than reliable'. If we had a perfect solution, ala the 'stun setting' phaser of Star Trek fame, I guarantee you it would be in use.

Tasers suffer from both their single shot nature and the fact that to deliver their jolt both prongs must connect with the target. All you need is from one barb to hit a button, belt, cell phone case, etc and the taser has literally no effect.

Pepper spray hurts like a bitch, but is highly dependent on the victims pain threshold. People that are not prepared or relatively calm? Works wonders. People that have naturally high pain tolerances or are already on an adrenaline high? Not so much. It still hurts, but it's not disabling. The other fun fact that people always forget is that pepper spray is just that: a spray. Ever sprayed a bug and gotten that weird taste or sticky feeling when some of it gets on you? Not fun.

People also always go with the 'well he was unarmed' argument whenever something like this happens. Do you have an idea how bizarrely durable AND fragile human beings are? We can be hit by cars and thrown 40 feet... and walk away. But we can also take a SINGLE punch and die. Until you've been hit by someone that is trying to physically harm you (not sparring or play fighting or accidents) you have no idea what your tolerance is nor in that moment do you know at what point that other person is going to stop.

If a man that size is punching me in the face and I'm already in an inferior position (Like Wilson was in this case, unable to retreat or gain leverage)? Yea, I'm going to shoot him and very likely kill him. And just like this cop I'm sure I'll be crucified as a murderer (if the guy attacking me is black, of course, if he's white no one will care).

Here's what I don't get about this entire issue. We have two very clear facts that are completely indisputable:

1) Brown stole items from a shop2) Brown physically assaulted a police officer that was in his car

How is this man being portrayed as a victim? There is no scenario that can be explained that makes Brown innocent. He physically attacked a law enforcement officer after committing a crime. Why does it matter how many times he was shot or where he was found? I don't give a damn how much he loved animals or whatever. He did something illegal and stupid, followed it up with something ELSE illegal and stupid. An as someone said above 'oh I stole skittles as a kid'... keyword: kid. This guy wasn't 10. He was an 18 year old man. Young, but still a man.

The lesson here isn't 'evil white cops just want to shoot black guys'. It's 'hey, maybe you shouldn't STEAL crap and then physically ASSAULT law enforcement officer if you don't want to get shot'. If you want to expose racism, profiling, or anything else there are far better examples in the world than this case. Instead it seems like the same story as always: black guy gets shot by a white guy, suddenly he's Pope Francis and clearly the white guy just wanted kill him because he was black.